Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:01, 11 February 2022

If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to promote centralized discussion and maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here.

This is Michael.C.Wright's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hi Michael.C.Wright! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Martin Kulldorff several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Martin Kulldorff, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Llll5032 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Llll5032 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This ongoing discussion will continue at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the article Martin Kulldorff. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Misplaced Pages's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Misplaced Pages, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you.Llll5032 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Llll5032 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, all attempts to reach consensus on this topic are being made on the appropriate talk page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff.

Your violations of WP:3RR occurred with the following reversions that began our exchange. One can clearly see that my first edits of the page included an entry in the talk page in an attempt to avoid such an edit war and your first response below was in fact a violation of the three-revert rule and your second set of responses below were also a violation of the WP:3RR.

First

1. 1065378354

2. 1065379783

3. 1065380260

4. 1065381204

Second:

1. 1065446047

2. 1065446393

3. 1065450035

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No, your reverts are more recent and numerous. I stopped reverting to avoid WP:3RR, and suggest you self-revert any use of unreliable sources or original analysis of primary sources (per WP:MEDPRI) to do the same. Llll5032 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly; my edits are more recent and your earlier reverts (linked above) are clearly the first two violations of WP:3RR.

My first major edit included an addition to the appropriate talk page and an invitation in my change comment to join the discussion on the talk page. Your initial reverts are linked above. Anyone viewing the change history of the page can clearly see how this disagreement has progressed.

My first edits preceding your edit war were:

1. An addition

2. A removal of an un-sourced claim

3. Adding a template to an obvious straw-man

4. An alteration clarifying a statement (without altering the premise of the statement)

The next four edits are linked above and are your first violation of WP:3RR.

Your first engagement in the talk page was specifically directed only my first addition (#1 just above) and then you had no further engagement in the talk until after you made four consecutive reversions of my content within 23 minutes, in direct violation of WP:3RR.

Not only have you failed to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to congenial co-editing, you have initiated an edit war, falsely accused me of starting one, repeatedly made biased edits to the page (using loaded language), intentionally tried to smear me here in my talk page with unfounded warnings and accusations, and now you repeatedly request that I unilaterally revert my changes.

It bears repeating: this ongoing discussion will continue at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff Discussion of the ongoing issue here rather than the appropriate talk page is counter-productive. Any comments here specifically regarding the discussion at Talk:Martin_Kulldorff will be deleted by me (as I've just done). Let's keep the discussion on the appropriate page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff There is no sense in dragging the discussion out over multiple different pages.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff

Hello Michael.C.Wright. You've been warned for edit warring per the complaint you filed at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

COI ?

Re this the question is simple enough: do you have any kind of COI for Kulldorff to WP:DISCLOSE? There is already an admin involved and it's a routine question with a simple enough answer. The reason you're being asked I guess is because of what looks like out-of-the-ordinary POV-pushing. Answering the question saves community time, which is helpful all round! Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn: As I've stated clearly before and will state again here: I am well aware of the WP:DISCLOSE requirements and am in compliance with them. If an admin is involved, I welcome their engagement in this matter.

This is the third time you have insinuated I have COI to disclose. Again, if you believe I am violating WP:DISCLOSE, you are encouraged to follow the correct procedure by filing a report at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

I have requested feedback from an administrator. Hopefully they will respond here but they could also simply respond on their talk page.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have "insinuated" nothing, just asked a question. And since you seemed unaware of what the WP:PAGs are (by saying the "correct procedure" was for me first to report you for paid editing, which I never ever mentioned) the question seems apt. Instead of this ridiculous dance-around you could have simply said "I have no COI for Martin Kulldorff" or "Whoops! I wasn't aware of WP:DISCLOSE, will do that now". Would have saved time, no? Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 01:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)